U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments in a case Tuesday .The suit could have much broader implications by shaking up how government agencies evaluate the environmental effects of proposed projects.
At question is whether the Surface Transportation Board is required to consider indirect environmental impacts of the Uinta Basin Railway, a proposed 88-mile rail expansion, in its review of the project. The requires the government to examine environmental impacts of proposed actions and management decisions before signing off on them.
Eagle County, Colo. and environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity fought the environmental review and the D.C. Circuit Court agreed to throw out the approval, saying that it did not adequately study several potential harms. Those included upstream and downstream consequences, such as increased oil drilling in the Uinta Basin, the risk that the crude oil could spill into the Colorado River and the pollution from refining the oil in Gulf Coast communities.
Utah's Seven County Infrastructure Coalition and a railway company, Uinta Basin Railway LLC, appealed the decision and took it to the Supreme Court, arguing that those environmental effects are outside of the area of the project and don鈥檛 fall under the scope of the Transportation Board鈥檚 purview.
鈥淲hen you lose sight of the project itself, and you start thinking about, 鈥極kay, well, you know this is going to lead to this, and it's going to lead to this, and might lead to this,鈥� attorney Paul Clement explained to justices on Tuesday, 鈥渢hen it takes you way outside the lane of this agency, and you make them consider things that are just not their job at all.鈥�
However, Eagle County, Colo., where the oil cars would pass through, along with several environmental groups argue that the agency did have an obligation to consider those factors. That鈥檚 because, under NEPA, agencies must consider the 鈥渞easonably foreseeable鈥� effects of a proposal, argued their attorney William Jay.
As the entire purpose of the project is to transport waxy crude oil, 鈥渋t follows that the board would at least consider what the environmental consequences of doing so would be,鈥� Jay said.
Now, the Supreme Court will decide how wide-ranging environmental reviews of proposed projects can be. Environmental lawyers say if the justices rule in the rail developers' favor, it could weaken NEPA, a bedrock environmental law, by limiting the scope of agency reviews.
鈥淚t could have quite a dramatic effect,鈥� said Jamie Pleune, an associate research professor at the University of Utah and a member of the school鈥檚 Wallace Stegner environmental law center. "It would limit the ability of the agency to actually consider the effect of the project on society as a whole.鈥�
A decision in the case is expected next year.
This story was produced by the Mountain West 暗黑爆料 Bureau, a collaboration between Wyoming Public Media, Nevada Public Radio, Boise State Public Radio in Idaho, KUNR in Nevada, KUNC in Colorado and KANW in New Mexico, with support from affiliate stations across the region. Funding for the Mountain West 暗黑爆料 Bureau is provided in part by the .
